After a tough and surprisingly
bitter campaign, voters in Denver Tuesday approved a ballot measure legalizing
the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana by persons 21 or older, but
city and state officials have vowed to ignore the vote and continue with
business as usual in Colorado's largest city. The measure passed
by a margin of 54% to 46%.

Mason Tvert on Denver's Fox station

Organized by the home-grown
group SAFER, or Safer Alternatives
for Enjoyable Recreation, which had earlier successfully engineered
votes at the University of Colorado and Colorado State University urging
college authorities to treat marijuana offenses like alcohol offenses,
the Denver initiative, S-100
marks the first time residents of a major US city have voted to legalize
marijuana possession. Seattle, Oakland, and a handful of college
towns across the country have approved "lowest law enforcement priority"
initiatives on marijuana, but none of those initiatives called for the
outright legalization of small amounts of marijuana.

A "lowest priority" initiative
on the ballot in the southwestern Colorado ski resort town of Telluride
was narrowly defeated Tuesday, failing by a margin of 308 votes to 332.
The organizers of that effort, Sensible
Colorado, remain undaunted, however, and are now eyeing plans for a
statewide effort.

"The vote in Denver is a
huge step toward a more sane marijuana policy in this country," said SAFER
head Mason Tvert. "We knew that people here supported the idea that
an adult should not be prohibited from making a rational choice to use
marijuana instead of alcohol," he told DRCNet. SAFER has made a comparison
of the relative harms and dangers of alcohol and marijuana the key component
in its successful campaigns.

"The results in Denver show
that marijuana reform is a mainstream issue. Voters are demonstrating
they understand that prohibition doesn't make a lot of sense and needs
to be rethought," said Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana
Policy Project, which is preparing for a statewide effort in Nevada
next year. "When something like this happens in Seattle or Oakland,
people might dismiss it as just a bunch of fringe lefties, but Denver is
the heartland. This is as mainstream as it gets."

Under current Colorado law,
possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is treated as an infraction,
with offenders subject to fines but not jail time -- up to $100, plus another
$100 mandatory fee for being arrested on drug charges. And it's not
as if the law is not enforced. Denver police cited more than 6,800
people for marijuana infractions since 2002. Under the newly passed
city ordinance, police would no longer be able to cite people for simple
possession, but Denver and state officials have vowed to ignore the ordinance
and continue to cite people under state law.

Colorado Attorney General
John Suthers told local media Tuesday that Denver police will continue
to cite marijuana offenders under the state law and he criticized the initiative
for aiming at the municipal level. "I have found these efforts to
be unconstructive," he said. "I understand the debate about legalization
and whether our drug laws are constructive. But I wish we would have
a full-out debate instead of these peripheral issues that accomplish just
about nothing."

Denver District Attorney
Mitch Morrissey was also determined to ignore the vote. "It's still
illegal in the city of Denver, because Denver's in Colorado," he said.

Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper,
owner of the Wynkoop Brewery and brew pub, an opponent of the measure,
also downplayed its significance, suggesting he, too, would advise police
to ignore the vote. "It's a generational thing," he said of the vote.
"People's attitudes toward marijuana; they're clearly changing," he said.
"If that election had been 20 years ago, it would have been a very different
outcome. The bottom line is, it doesn't change state law. I
think it's more symbolic than anything else."

While foes of the measure
are now arguing that the initiative doesn't change anything, they were
singing a different tune before the election. Denver would become
the Amsterdam of the Rockies, they warned. "Next thing you know,
we'll have drug dealers setting up in City Park," warned city councilman
Charlie Brown, who was so opposed to the measure that he took to ripping
down signs touting it.

"People will flock to Denver
to use marijuana," Jeffrey Sweetin, head of the Rocky Mountain Division
of the Drug Enforcement Administration told the Associated Press last week.
Inadvertently making an argument for complete legalization of the weed,
Sweetin argued that people would still have to buy the drug from illicit
sources and they "don't realize all that money goes to organized crime."

SAFER is now pondering how
to turn the screws on public officials who refuse to heed the will of the
voters. The DEA may be out of SAFER's immediate reach, but local
officials are not. "They say their legitimacy comes from being elected
by the people, but now they're not going to recognize this vote," said
Tvert. "Why are they hiding behind state law? The fact is,
this city has the right to handle marijuana cases under the municipal law,
and it is a matter of prosecutorial discretion to do so," he said.
"Ultimately, if our elected officials fail us, we may have to find new
ones," he said.

Another possible tactic is
to jam the court system with marijuana cases. "Anyone who is arrested
for marijuana possession in Denver on state charges could demand a trial,"
he pointed out.

"This is a situation where
local activists are going to have to ride herd on their local government,"
said the Marijuana Policy Project's Mirken. "A local ordinance isn't
going to solve the problem of marijuana prohibition, but we do live --
at least in theory -- in a democratic society where the police are our
servants, not our masters. When the voters of a city make clear their
desires, the police and elected officials ought to listen rather than resist.
But this won't happen automatically. There is a deep-seated hostility
in some corners of law enforcement, and their feet are going to have to
be held to the fire."

The campaign itself got pretty
hostile. As noted above, Councilman Brown's opposition was so ardent
he resorted to tearing down campaign signs. He also complained loudly
-- along with some domestic violence activists -- about a SAFER billboard
designed by Change
the Climate that argued that voting for S-100 would reduce domestic
violence. That billboard was modified before finally going up.
Brown and others also objected to other SAFER campaign materials that said
merely that S-100 would make the city safer without mentioning marijuana.
"This isn't about domestic violence. This isn't about alcohol," he
complained to the Rocky Mountain News last week. "This is about marijuana.

But Tvert makes no bones
about the thrust of the campaign: Marijuana is safer than alcohol.
"The ads were controversial, but they worked to our benefit," he said.
"We got a bunch of flak for saying people smoking pot were less likely
to beat their wives than people drinking alcohol, but that's just good
science. We had four people shot and killed in alcohol-related incidents
in Denver last weekend alone. People get it."

The campaign also went after
Mayor Hickenlooper, accusing him of hypocrisy and even of being a drug
dealer. "This is a mayor who owns breweries across the country and
is selling a more deadly product than marijuana. Yes, we charge him
with hypocrisy," said Tvert.

But now that the election
is over, it could be time to mend fences. "We want to see this implemented
in Denver," said Tvert.

In getting local officials
to recognize their victory, Tvert and his allies -- and the voters of Denver
-- have the sort of problems Sensible Colorado only wishes it had.
While the party-happy resort town of Telluride may have seemed a natural
for a "lowest priority" initiative, Sensible Colorado couldn't make it
happen this time, losing in a squeaker by only 24 votes.

Question 200 would have directed
the Telluride Town Marshal's office to make marijuana citations the lowest
law enforcement priority, but according to local officials and numerous
letter writers to the local newspaper, that was already pretty much the
case. Some opponents also cited Sensible Colorado's outsider status
in the small, remote ski destination. The group is based in Denver.

A surprise opponent of the
Telluride ordinance was county Sheriff
Bill Masters, who has called for ending drug prohibition. This
wasn't the way to do it, he told DRCNet. "I'm all for changing the
law and making it legal, but this is a dumb ordinance," he said.
"I think the idea of directing the executive branch to ignore the law is
a mistake. We need to change the law, not just wink at it.
The way they did it in Denver makes a lot more sense. I can see why
that passed."

Masters also criticized Sensible
Colorado for some of its campaign tactics. "This is a small community,
and these guys came in from out of town and started putting up signs saying
'Stop Crime, Vote for 200,' and everyone thought that was just ridiculous,"
he said. "They picked the wrong town and went about it the wrong
way."

"It's the duty of citizens
to make the laws and tell police what to do," retorted Sensible Colorado's
Brian Vincent. "In a home rule municipality like Telluride, they
have the power to set a priority system." He also challenged suggestions
the initiative was an "outsider" effort. "I think this was a fairly
home-grown initiative," Vincent said. "We had the support of the
county coroner, we had the support of a county commissioner, we had more
than 160 locals sign the petition to put this on the ballot."

But possible tactical errors
aside, Sensible Colorado faced a more fundamental problem in Telluride,
said Masters. In a town where only 17 marijuana citations were issued
last year, most people were content with local police on the issue.
"The Telluride police have a reasonable, if unwritten, policy on marijuana.
Almost every one of the citations they issued were for people arrested
for something else. Many people felt the local police were pretty
reasonable and didn't need that direction."

Despite the defeat, Vincent
was upbeat. "Look, we lost by 24 votes, that's a pretty narrow margin
of defeat, and we feel pretty good about our effort. We feel good
about what happened in Denver, too. That's a historic victory.
It's certainly a big day for marijuana reform in Colorado."

Vincent and Sensible Colorado
are aiming for more big days and historic victories. "We are looking
at a statewide initiative either next year or 2008. We are going
to build off this momentum. We can't be called a fringe movement
anymore." It may not be a "tax and regulate" initiative, though.
"People don't like the word 'tax' too much in Colorado," Vincent chuckled.
"Maybe we'll talk about controlled regulation. Or come to think of
it, the state's largest city just voted to remove all criminal penalties,
didn't they? We're real excited about Colorado."

PERMISSION to reprint or
redistribute any or all of the contents of Drug War Chronicle (formerly The Week Online with DRCNet is hereby
granted. We ask that any use of these materials include proper credit and,
where appropriate, a link to one or more of our web sites. If your
publication customarily pays for publication, DRCNet requests checks
payable to the organization. If your publication does not pay for
materials, you are free to use the materials gratis. In all cases, we
request notification for our records, including physical copies where
material has appeared in print. Contact: StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network,
P.O. Box 18402, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293-8340 (voice), (202)
293-8344 (fax), e-mail drcnet@drcnet.org. Thank
you.

Articles of a purely
educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of the DRCNet
Foundation, unless otherwise noted.